Arbitrators the vanity of each of which hath been evinced that therefore it is a particular instituted Church of Christ in the New Testament as Mr. T. knows the learned of old and of late have interpreted it So Ignatius who applies it to the particular Church of Philadelphia Chrysostome c. The judicious Casaubon Exercit. Lib. 15. p. 433. c. These things premised we attend his Answers to the Questions proposed in S. T. of which in the next Section we shall treat Sect. 14. Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel Mr. T. his answers hereunto considered Isa 49. 23 66. 8. explained That they are Prophesies that wait their accomplishment demonstrated Of the miraculous conversion of the Jews Zach. 12. 10. explained The Sign of the Son of Man Mat. 24. 30. What. THe first Quest in S. T. proposed by us is Whether since the Apotomie or unchurching the Nation of the Jews the Lord hath so espoused a Nation or People to himself as that upon the account thereof the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his Church Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel This Mr. T. is pleased to make two Questions though in it self but one the latter being only exegetical to the former 1st He grants That God hath not since the unchurching the Nation of the Jews espoused a Nation to himself as that the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his i. e. There is no National Church of divine Institution under the Gospel for if there be the Lord hath most assuredly visibly espoused that Nation to himself and they are to be accounted his What hâ— adds viz. We own no Church visible now but of Believers by their own personal profession we are not concerned to take notice of His mentioning the 9th Article of the Church of England by way of approbation and as if it were of the same mind with him touching the subjects of the visible Church is an abuse of it and the Reader 'T is known that the addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly Chap. 25. Art 2. Of Childrens Church-membership is the Doctrine of the said Church Of this matter we are not now treating Secondly In answer to the Question Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel I say saith Mr. T. that though there be no National Church so as that the whole Nation and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ by virtue of their generation and Proselytism and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural Seed or to Israel at Mount Sinai or elsewhere yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church as well as the whole body of men throughout the world upon the account of their professing the Faith of the Gospel c. are and may be called the visible Catholick-Church of Christ Answ 1. But if Mr. T. thinks this to be an answer to the Question he will scarce find in this matter any Corrival Quaestio est de ollis Responsio de sepis We are not enquiring whether a company of Believers living in a Nation may be called upon the account of their Faith and Profession a National Church which by the figure Caâ—achresis it may be they may I am sure most abusively and improperly it is that they are so called Nor 2dly Is the enquiry de facto of what by the Providence of God is come to pass in which sense we grant there is a Natioâ—al Church under the Gospel the Church of England is so But 3dly Whether upon the account of a compulsed or education-Faith and Profession contradicted by the most assumed and professed by persons living in a Nation divided in several Parishes Diocesses under the conduct of their Parochial Ministers and Diocesan Metropolitan Bishops united together under one or more Ecclesiastical visible Head This company of People thus molded are or may truly be accounted a Church of Christ instituted by him under the Oeconomie of the Gospel Which whoever will undertake to demonstrate must I conceive attempt the proof of these few things First That a profession of Faith forced and compelled or at least in which men have been trained up from their Infancy as the Turkes are in the Doctrine of their Alcoran and that for the most part contradicted in their conversation is sufficient to give a man or woman a right and title to Church-membership Secondly That persons co-habiting or living together in a Parish are de jure upon the account of that their co-habitation at least if they make so much profession as to be able to say the Creed Lords-Prayer and ten Commandments though as was said contradicted by a course of debauchery c. are a Church of Christ or that Parish-Churches quâ tales are of the Institution of Christ Thirdly That the Subordination of these Churches and Ministers to Diocesan Bishops Archdeacons Consistories and Commissaries and these again to an Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan is of the same Original Fourthly That these Bishops Arch-deacons Commissaries Courts Ecclesiastical Metropolitical Head are of the Institution of Christ Which when Mr. T. or any one for him shall do I will be a Member of the Church of England But he knows an easier way 'T is but saying That there is no Institution of a Church by Preception or Command and he avoids he thinks the necessity of putting himself to all this toyl But seriously Sir very few considerate and judicious Christians will care to be Members of such a Church as is destitute of divine Institution and whether his Clients of the Church of England will thank him for this part of his Plea I am not certain In the greatness of his love he seems to be killing his Mother with kind embraces The Church of England is not he grants of the Institution of Christ for there is no Church that is so that there is no need to alleadge Isa 49. 23. and 66. 8. for the Institution of a National Church Nevertheless that the Prophesie Isa 49. 23. waits the time of its accomplishment is said by the author of the S. T. with more confidence than evidence Answ Well Mr. T. will not be guilty of the same crime what evidence brings he of this confident assertion Why many learned Interpreters among whom Mr. Gataker think otherwise But Sir we have not learned Jurare in verba Magistri to take any mans dictates for evident proof of any thing of this nature which we are sure they are not As learned Interpreters are of the mind of the Author of S. T. The truth of the Assertion is evident 1st The Prophesie hath respect to some time after the coming of Christ in the flesh of which he speaketh vers 1 3 4 5 7 8. which one consideration manifests the nothingness of
that a conformity to any thing that God had revealed and determined as our duty had upon that account been our bondage 'T is the liberty joy and delight of the Saints to do his will Psal 119. 45. 1 Joh. 5. 3. Psal 19. 8. 119. 111. Such kind of weak impertinent arguings asserted with state and confidence as is the manner of the man must he be content to deal with who undertakes the consideration of what is proposed by this Animadverter But to recite these Arguments had been Answer sufficient to the judicious and intelligent Reader We attend his further motion Sect. 20. God had designed his own Officers for the management of the affairs of his House Who they are may be collected from Ephes 4. 11. The Animadverter proves not that Arch-Bishops c. do the work of the Ministers of the Gospel are commissionated by Christ His apprehension when he took the solemn League and Covenant not the same as now The extensiveness of the Priviledges of the Saints under the Gospel-Oeconomie What things were wanting to the Jews under the second Temple which they had under the first The Election of Ministers the peculiar Priviledge of the Church That it was practised by the Saints in the first Ages granted by the Animadverter Many things charged upon the Saints then living that are false Neither former disorders nor present distempers amongst the Saints any sufficient Warrant for the changing an Institution of Christ. The Priviledge of Women asserted from Scripture and learned Writers Of the Decree of the Council of Carthage 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. 1 Tim. 2. 12. explained What is to be done in case of difference in the Congregation touching the election of Officers MR. T. in his 21. Sect. proposes the 5th Query in S. T. to consideration viz. Whether God hath not now as then under the time of the Law designed the several Officers and Offices his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House so that the Invention of new ones by the Sons of Men is not only needless but a daring advance against the soveraignty care and wisdom of God over his Churches To which after a large harangue touching Moses the 70 Elders Joshua the Judges David and other Kings the Prophets Aaron and his Sons with the Levites whom the Lord appointed for the management of the affairs of his House having also learnedly told us that God hath not in the Christian Church designed such Officers and Offices as these the twelve Disciples and amongst the rest Peter to whom he seems to assert a Primacy by way of promise to appertain He resolves the Question in the affirmative Tells us that who the Officers of Christ's designing are may best be gathered from Eph. 4. 11. of which we have formerly spoke in Chap. 3. of S. T. As for what follows when Mr. T. shall prove 1st That the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops c. of the Church of England do the works enjoyned by Christ and his Apostles to the Ministers of the Gospel 2dly That every one that doth those works though not Commissionated by Christ thereunto nor performing them after the order appointed by him is a Minister of Christ 3dly That its lawful for the Sons of men to make more degrees of Ministry one above the other under new Names Titles with maintenance forreign to the maintenance of Christ employed in works he no where charges upon them to do than Christ ever instituted appointed shall look upon our selves as concerned in what he offers in this Section But till then we shall neither trouble our selves or Reader with his Lordly dictates which being tendred without proof may righteously be rejected by us Only thus much I would tell him in his ear That if he had when he took the solemn League and Covenant the same apprehension of this generation of men he now seems to have he did very wickedly to swear to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy i. e. as in the Covenant is explained Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops their Chancellours and Commissaries Deans Deans and Chapters Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchie What Durst he sware to extirpate the Ministers and Ministry of Christ as he now supposeth them to be But Tempora mutantur nos mutamur in illis In Sect. 22. Mr. T. takes notice of the 6th enquiry in S. T. touching the extensiveness of the Priviledges of the Saints under the Gospel whether not commensurate with theirs under the Law which if understood of Saints in appearance or the visible Church he tells us The visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater Priviledges as those mentioned Rom. 9. 4 5. 3. 1 2. and are they not as much committed to the Church and People of God now so that these Texts are little to his advantage together with Gods revealing his mind to them by Urim and Thumim extraordinary Prophets and many more which he not being pleased to particularize to us we shall not turn aside to make enquiry after But to those instanced in we Answer First That the Church and People of God are destitute of some of the Priviledges mentioned is granted and so was the Church of the Jews after their return from the Babylonish Captivity The Rabbies tell us That in the second Temple there were five things wanting which had been in the first 1. The Ark with the Mercy-Seat and Cherubims 2. The fire from Heaven 3. The Urim and Thummim Ezra 2. 63. Neh. 7. 65. whereby the Lord never answered them more 4. The Majesty or divine presence whereby they seem to mean the Oracle in the most holy place where God hath dwelt between the Cherubims Psal 80. 2. Numb 7. 89. 5. The Holy Ghost or the Spirit of Prophesie which was not in the Prophets after the second year of Darius after Haggai Zechariah and Malachie had finished their Prophesies Secondly The Inference of the Animadverter is weak Believers or visible Saints under the Gospel have not some things with which the Church of the Jews was priviledged therefore their Priviledges are not as extensive which notwithstanding they might be yea abundantly more extensive The first Temple upon many accounts was more glorious than the second which wanted as was but now remarked many things wherein its glory lay Yet Hag. 2. 9. the Prophet tells them that the glory of the latter house should be greater than of the former which it was though it had not the same things for its ornament and glory upon other accounts viz. it s being honoured with the bodily presence of Christ there c. Of the Priviledges of the Gospel-Churches and their super-eminency with respect to the Old-Testament-Church we shall not now treat They are delivered from the Yoke of Ceremonial Observances have the Gospel unvailed preached amongst them 2 Cor. 3. 18 c. Nor need we the intendment of our present enquiry being only this Whether the solemn deputation of
amongst the Congregated Churches if but once 't is too often Though Mr. T. his expression intimates as if a frequent case which I cannot but tell him is a meer calumny 'T will not one day be for his credit however it may at present serve his design that he walks so much by that rule Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit 2. When it happens the exercise of those Rules of Condescention Love and mutual forbearance enjoyned by Christ upon his Disciples would soon put an end to the differences suggested But 3. If this will not do the calling-in the help of some Sister-Church may quench the flames Yet 4. If nothing will do but through the prevalency of corruption Schisms remain amongst them and separation at the last each from other ensue to prevent this we must not lay aside an Institution of Christ 5. Besides the imposing a Minister upon a People by a Patron with a Bishops Institution and Induction hath more frequently and I am sure more justly and warrantably been the occasion of the offence and difference intimated Sect. 21. Of a visible instituted Church and its security from Apostasie What Errors and Corruptions unchurch a Church Of the National Church of England Of the Governours and Officers of a collapsed Church The condition of England's Church-Officers Of Separation from a collapsed Church Of Communion with a Church not rightly constituted and compulsion thereunto IN Sect. 23. Mr. T. transcribes the 7th Query in S. T. Whether any visible instituted Church in the world hath greater security against Apostasie from God and that sore judgment of having its Candlestick removed and being unchurched than that people of the Jews had If not then whether supposing a National Church to be of the Institution of Christ it may not so come to pass that it may be so overspread with corruptions â—hat it may lose the essence of a Church and justly be disrobed of that appellation To which he answers in the Affirmative and tells us that they justly plead it against the Church of Rome and that the promise Mat. 16. 8. doth not belong to any particular instituted Church in the World but to the invisible Church of Gods Elect. And we are of the same mind with him in this matter But lest any reflection of disparagement should from this Concession happen to the Church of England as a very dutiful Son he adds That not every no nor many corruptions of some kind do unchurch but such Errors as overthrow the foundation of Christian Faith Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry in life by evil manners utterly inconsistant with Christianity Answ 1. Nor did we ever assert that every or many corruptions of some kind did unchurch So that in this matter Mr. T. might have saved his pains Nor 2dly had we the least occasion to do so with respect to the Church of England which we deny to be a true Church not because dreadfully degenerate from what at first it was but because in its first Constitution as National which it received under the Paâ—acy it was never a true Church of Christ Though 3dly such fundamental Errors such corruptions in Worship and evil manners are to be found upon it that are inconsistant with the power of Godliness or Christianity and therefore such as by Mr. T. his Concession were enough to unchurch it To the eighth Query in S. T. viz. Whether the Ecclesiastick and Spiritual Rulers Governours and Officers of such a collapsed Church may not righteously as of old be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets that go about to cause the people to forget the Name of the Lord or his pure Worship by their lies or unscriptural Traditions Innovations and ceremonious Pageantries Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 24. which he fronts with this Every Error makes not a false Prophet which no one saith it doth And further by way of reply having placed in the Van 2 Pet. 2. 1. Jude 4. 1 John 4. 1. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. which speak of false Prophets and Antichrist but advantage him not in the least in his present undertaking as we have manifested He adds that so long as they teach the Worship of Christ in his Name are without Idolatry in their Worship and Heresie in their Doctrine they are not to be accounted false Prophets Answ But this as to the present Ministers of England will not be granted They practise not the Worship of Christ but of Antichrist as we prove ch 7. of S. T. They come not really in Christ's Name though they pretend to it but in the name by the authority of the most profest enemy he hath in the world as we evince ch 3. of S. T. Though the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. be the most sincere part the greatest care of our Reformers at first being thereabout yet they own and preach false Doctrine the most of them are greatly degenerated from the Doctrine of the Church of England in not a few points as touching Election Free-will the extent of the Death of Christ c. as might be evidenced from their Sermons and printed Papers Of this we have spoken chap. 10. of S. T. The addition of this Animadverter of In Te ipsum cudetur faba as if guilty of the same things or such like as we charge upon the Ministers of the Church of England I challenge him to make good else he doth but calumniate His 25th Section is an Answer to the 9th Query in S. T. about separation from a Church so dreadfully collapsed as to lose the essence of a Church The sum is 1. Separation by reason of some corruptions is unwarrantable Answ And we say so too but this is not ad Rhombum we are speaking not of corruptions of any kind but of such as destroy the essence of a Church as is evident from the 7th Query in S. T. upon which this hath a dependance He adds 2dly Separation from a Church somewhat erroneous in judgment and corrupt in worship and conversation that is not Idolatrous nor heretical nor requires that to their Communion which would be sinful especially if from all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable Answ 1. All this might be granted without the least disadvantage to the Cause we are pleading 2dly By his own Sword is the Cause he undertakes the defence of wounded under the fifth rib We prove the Church of England Idolatrous Heretical She requires that to her Communion that is sinfull viz. Conformity to the Mass-book I should have said the Liturgie from thence stolen bowing at the Name of Jesus communicating with a Drunken Parish-Priest and a company of Swearing Drunken Parishioners whereby persons become one Bread with them kneeling at the act of receiving having their Children signed with the sign of the Cross which we are apt to think are things sinful and till Mr. T. is pleased better to inform us are like to abide in our present apprehension thereabout from
where it cannot be otherwise interpreted therefore we must depart from the proper notation of the word where the context of the place doth induce us and the practice of the Church and People of God in after-generations to abide by it is not tolerable arguing His next Exception is 3dly None are said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Paul and Barnabas and they are said to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them viz. tâ—â— Church or Disciples Answ 1. Nor is it necessary that we affirm any other so to do They herein presiding over them and regulating the whole affair according to the instructions received from Christ bear the name of the whole work though the Votes and Suffrages of the Disciples were in it also The Apostles ordained by Suffrages viz. the Suffrages of the Church Elders for them But this proves not that the Vote of the Disciples was excluded it rather evinceth the cantraâ—y Yet 2dly Why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be rendred creating by Suffrages or ordaining for them I do not understand It may every whit as properly be rendred with them viz. with the Church or Disciples For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently rendred so Mat. 13. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye root up also the Wheat not for but with them Act. 17. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasoâ—ed with them Heb. 8. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for finding fault with them and in many places besides That it should be so rendred here is evident 1. 'T is consonant to the practice of the Saints then and in after-generations as is known 2. How Paul and Barnabas may be said properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain by Suffrages alone by themselves every understanding is not able to reach render the word with them i. e. with the Disciples and the câ—se is plain â—nd evident viz. the Apostles with the Church or Congregation of Believers by Suffrages and Votes ordained Elders which is the matter enquired after So that whatever this Animadverter is able to say to the contrary this Scripture proves the power of particular Churches to elect their own Officers and therefore if the present Ministers have not received a Commission from Christ thus mediately by the election of some one or other particular instituted Church of Christ if they pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron Ordination Institution and Induction from a lord-Lord-Bishop things forreign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the People whether they will or no as it may most truly be affirmed of them they are not Ministers of the Gospel nor may be heard as such But Mr. T. hath somewhat more to adde he tells us 1. That it will be hard for us to prove that the parish-Parish-Churches in England are not particular instituted Churches of Christ Answ 1. Of what is hard or easie for us to do or any man else our Animadverter seems a very incompetent Judge 2dly He is not ignorant that this is already done to our hands by several learned men and 't is sure no difficult task actum agere to do over again what we find done to our hands before He further affirms 2dly It will also be hard to prove that the Ministers of England are imposed on the People whether they will or no. Answ 1. The generality of the People of England will attest the verity hereof who for the most part know not their Minister till he comes to them with his Orders nor is their Consent touching his Reception desired or at all significant with respect to his exercising an Office-power over them 2dly What they do in London and some few particular places where the Inhabitants it may be are the Patrons is not considerable or worth the minding 1. For the most part they are imposed upon the people whether they will or no. 2. Were they chosen by their Parochial Inhabitants they were never the nearer Ministers of Christ Because 1. That their choice hath not the least influence upon their being constituted such 't is the Bishops Ordination that in this matter doth all 2. The parish-Parish-Churches of England are not true Churches of Christ which we demonstrate 1. Where there is not the true matter of a Church there is not a true Church But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not the true matter of a Church Therefore The Minor which alone is capable of a denial is evident That only is fit matter of a Church which corresponds to the matter of the Primitive Churches planted by the Apostles These were Saints Ephes 1. 1. Col. 1. 2. Holy Brethren 1 Thess 5. 27. Such â—â— were not of but called out of the World Joh. 15. 18 19. whom God had received Rom. 14. 3. Such as please Christ and are dearly beloved by him Eph. 5. 29. are built upon the foundation of the Prophets anâ— Apostles Eph. 2. 20. have the Spirit of Christ Eph. 4. 4. are built up together an holy and spiritual House to God 1 Pet. 2. 5. God 's House 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 6. are living Stones a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People v. 9. faithful in Christ Jesus Eph. 1. 1. The sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty 2 Cor. 6. 17 18. Christ is said to be their Husband their Head They his Bride Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. his Temple 1 Cor. 3. 16. Now he must have a brow of brass that shall affirm that these Characters are applicable to the Parish-Assemblies of England when they themselves will confess they appertain not to them Are Drunkards Swearers Revilers Persecuters of God and Holiness loose prophane scandalous livers of which these Assemblies for the most part are constituted and made up Saints holy Brethren such as are called out of the World c. None will dare to aver it 2dly Where there is not the true form of a Church there is not the true Church But in the Parish-Assemblies of England there is not the true form of a Church Therefore The Minor which is alone liable to exception is evident The form of a Church consists in the free and voluntary embodying together of Saints giving up themselves to the Lord and one another according to his will as we have already proved Now this cannot be asserted of the Parish-Assemblies Those Civil divisions for they are no others were of the institution of man as we have demonstrated And to this day they are held together by penal Statutes and Ordinances such as never came into the heart of Christ to establish 3dly There where there is not the Church-power that of right belongs to a true Church of Christ there is not a true Church of Christ But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not that Church-power nor as such are they capable of it Therefore The Minor which alone is to be proved is perspicuous 1. The power of electing their own Officers
it is Is not the Discipline of their Church from the Canon Law with what forehead can he deny it Whence is the Hierarchy Ecclesiastical decrees Episcopal jurisdiction Procurations Dispensations Pluralities Non-residencies Popish-retained-Ceremonies their Excommunications by a Commissary Ordinations Absolutions Degradations Visitations Offerings Courts Silencing of Godly Preachers disquieting the Lords people for Non-conformity if not from the Cannon-Law These things are notoriously known to be from them So that Mr. T. grants the present Ministers may lawfully be separated from But this might be a slip of his pen before he was aware That it is our duty to separate from persons acting from an Antichristian Power Office or Calling we prove 2ly 'T is unlawful to attend upon the Teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by vertue of a power derived from him To this Mr. T. replyes If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the power derived from him be meant the English Bishops Ordination it is impudency to say they derived their power from Rome Answ 1. We are not yet speaking of the Ministers of England to separate from those that act from an Antichristian power be they Ministers of Germany Holland if they so act in their Ministry they are to be seperated from and that because we may not attend upon Antichrist in his Teachings or Ministration doth Mr. T. deny tâ—is He saith indeed if they preach truth we may attend upon their Ministry though they so act Answ But this hath been often said without the least proof and as frequently replyed to and its inconsutilousness in its applâ—cation to the present Ministers who preach Popish Errours and are interdicted the preaching all truth manifested 'T is an assertion most derogatory to the Dignity and Authority of our Lord and King and not to be born by his Loyal Subjects Hath not he Servants enough of his own to do his work to preach his Gospel but he must be beholding to the greatest enemies he hath in the world to send forth Servants into his Vineyard 2dly The present Ministers of England deny their power from the Papacy or they do not if they do not it had been my mistake not impudency to say they did If they do as most certain it is they do and they themselves acknowledge it and plead it the Impudency is rather in Mr. T. to deny it I add in S. T. 3dly Christ calls his to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. 14. 9 10 11. Therefore from his Ministry or such as act by vertue of an Antichristian power To which our Animadverter replies 1 Rev. 18. 4. may be understood of a local departure from Babylon when her judgment of destruction from the Kings of the Earth draws nigh Answ 1. And who can hinder Mr. T. from making conjectures his it may be is no proof that it is However the ground of the Lord 's calling them out of Rome should it be granted him that by Babylon were meant the City of Rome is plainly intimated to be lest they should partake of their sins Not their dwelling in Rome but their complying with the Antichristian Ministry Worship thereof their abominable Rites and Ceremonies is that which is loathsom to the Lord. 2dly 'T is true God calls not his People to depart from every doctrine the Pope teacheth there is some truth remaining amongst them which is to be cleaved to because truth much less a rejection of the Bible These are but vain words empty flourishes this Animadverter knows full well that these things are not affirmed by those with whom he hath to do 3dly To a departure from her by forsaking Communion with her in Worship and leaving subjection to her Government he grants this Scripture may be extended which is all we need contend for The Worship of Rome and England are much the same as we prove The Church-government in use amongst us by arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops issues from the same sourse and spring as is known Therefore a separation from the Worship and Ministry of England lawful by the Animadverter's confession 4thly When God commands to come out of her he must be interpreted to come out of every thing of her viz. that which is truly hers whatever hath not the stamp and authority of God upon it for the reason why the Lord would have his forsake any thing of hers is because it is hers and hath not his own Image and Superscription 'T is ridiculous to imagine that God should command a separation from her Worship and Government and not from her Ministry when this is a main part of her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church-Government He adds 2dly By the Beast and his Image Rev. 14. 9 10 11. is meant some Empire or State which promotes Idolatry the Roman Papacy the worshipping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts The receiving his mark is a profession of our being the servants of the Pope to subject to his authority and after the citation of Mr. Brightman and Mr. Mede speaking to this purpose he saith which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image is not retaining every usage of the Papists though superstitious and corrupt but acknowledging the universal Monarchy of the Popes adoring Images the Host c. Answ 1. But what doth evince that this is all that is intended by worshipping the Image of the Beast Mr. T. would bear his Reader in hand as if he had produced somewhat for the confirmation of his Assertion when he hath not said the least word tending thereunto The very truth is 2ly The Beast mentioned Rev. 14. 9 10. is the same with the Beast mentioned Rev. 13. 11. or the false Prophet Rev. 19. 21. or Antichrist consider'd in his Ecclesiastical State composed of head the Popes and members the rest of the Antichristian Clergy whether at Rome or elsewhere for as the learned Mede saith the Pope alone maketh not up the Beast except the Clergy be joâ—n'd with him since the Beast doth signifie a company of men composed of a certain order of members like as the Beast hath not one man alone the Image of the Beast cannot be a dumb Image 't is expresly said to be a speaking one viz. the Ecclesiastical policy that in its Cannon-Laws upon which both that of Rome and England is founded breatheth forth nothing but Excommunication against such as shall disobey them upon which they are deliver'd over to the Secular Power here with us though not to be burned yet to perpetual Imprisonment The worshipping the Beast and receiving the mark is subjection to an Antichristian Ministry and Church-polity from which it is the duty of the people of God to separate and if we prove not the Ministers of England to be so we acknowledg this Argument to be null and that notwithstanding any thing in it
hitherto asserted it may be lawful to attend them We say in S. T. 4ly That there is not a command in the Scripture enjoyning Saints to take heed of being deceived to try the spirits but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of the first Proposition To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. If by acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power be meant their acknowledging the power teaching the doctrine owning the calling of him that is truly Antichrist 't is granted Answ To this we have already replyed 'T is enough to prove any person ought to be separated from if he act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power though the doctrine he preach be true He adds 2ly The Scriptures mentioned forbid command he means only to reject Antichristian Doctrine and Worship not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist Answ 1. Very well If we prove then the Worship of the Church of England to be Antichristian it is to be reiected Now it being the Worship of the Papacy which is acknowledged by him to be so I cannot see how it can be otherwise 2ly The Scriptures mentioned fairly import not only a command for the rejection of the Doctrine and Worship which is Antichristian but them also that pretend to be but really are not of God The persons are to be proved and tryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 try them as Goldsmiths try Gold whether it be pure and right and if you find them not to be so reject them 1 John 4. 1. We proceed and in S. T. say further 5ly The institution of Officers of his own by Christ to be continued to the end of the World Eph. 4. 11. evinceth the truth of the Major proposition To this our Animadverter answers 1. 'T is true some of the Officers mentioned Ephes 4. are to be continued to the end of the World in the way appointed by him but that there is any particular way of Election of ordinary â—astors and Teachers in those words appears not Answ Who saith there is 'T is sufficient they prove the continuation of the Officers in the Church to be an Institution of Christ Of the particular way of their election we have mentioned elsewhere as we have shewed 2ly 'T is well this Animadverter will acknowledg that there is a way appointed by Christ in which Church-Officers are to be continued which as I conceive is a part of Church-Government which therefore cannot be left to such an indifferency as he sometimes intimates He tels us 2ly How the Major is proved by it he discerns not unless this be the Argument Christ hath appointed these therefore no other are to be heard which overthrowes the hearing of Gifted-Brethren Answ We are contented with the form our words are by him cast into only with this alteration therefore no other are to be heard as Ministers acting by vertue of an Office-Power which makes nothing against the hearing of gifted Brethren We further add in S. T. 6ly That there is no promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending upon such a Ministry Mr. T. replies 1. Though there be no promise of a blessing upon persons attending on such a Ministry yet if they Preach the Gospel truly there is Luk. 11. 28. Answ 1. 'T is not probable they should Preach the Gospel truly as touching the present Ministers of England they do not so 1. They preach it from a false mission 2ly They preach it by halves as is known 3. They mixt many humane traditions therewith and thereby obscure the Gospel as Mr. T. himself in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum asserts 4ly There is no blessing promised to persons attending upon such a Ministry Luk. 11. 28. Christ speaks not there of any such Ministry the whole of his intendment is that no external pâ—iviledge though it were to bear him in the Womb c. who was a true Messiah renders a man glorious blessed and excellent as a conformity to the divine will which how much it is to his purpose others will judge He saith 2ly If there were no promise of a blessing the Major is not proved unless this were true They are not to be heard but separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Bretheren unless they can produce such a promise Answ Let me seriously ask this Animadverter whether he doth not when he goes to hear go to meet with God in that duty and to receive a blessing from him This he will not sure deny now I would know further whence it is he expects to meet with God and be blessed by him in his so doing can he or any one in the world give any other reason but this Because God hath promised to meet and bless his people while they are waiting on him in his own wayes Whether the work be managed by a Minister of Christ as acting by Office-power or a private Brother acting by vertue of Talents received for the profiting and edification of the Body we are not destitute of a promise of a blessing Exod. 20. 24. Isa 64. 5. Mat. 18. 20. Eph. 4. 11 to 15. But if we run to a false Ministry to such as act from an Antichristian office and calling I know not any promise of a blessing but rather the contrary So that the Major Proposition remains unshaken notwithstanding Mr. T. his Battery against it His next attempt is against the Minor of which in the next Section Sect. 2. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling proved They are not from Christ There is a twofold Church Ministry Worship Of Luthers Ministry The names office of the present Ministers their admission thereinto forreign to the Scripture Of Suffragan Bishops THat the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian power office or calling which is the Minor Proposition of the last mentioned Argument we say in S. T. wants not sufficient demonstration 1. The present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist there is no medium That they are not from Christ besides what is already proved may be further evinced To which our Animadverter answers 1. Mr. Bradshaw asserts that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in reâ—pect of the thing ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith it is not necessary that the ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the ministry of his apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Hus c. Answ 1. All that Mr. Bradshaw saith is not Gospel nor to be believed because he saith it 2dly That the thing ministred should render that Ministry that
God and before God 9. Postremo Lastly the Bishop takes and delivers to them all the Book of the Gospel saying Receive power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God 10. Pontifex The Bishop shall say the Ministers and Chaplains answering Lord have mercy upon us O God the Father of Heaven have mercy on us O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to blesse sanctifie and consecrate these elect ☞ We beseech thee hear us 11. They sing one and the same Hymn only the one is in Latine the other in English Veni Creator Spiritus Mentes tuorum visita c. 12. Pontifex The Bishop shall lay his hands upon the heads of each of them kneeling upon their knees before him saying to every one Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained 13. Pax The Peace of God be alwayes with you the blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and Holy Ghost descend upon you English Pontifical 1. We decree that no Deacons or Ministers be ordained but only upon the Sundays more heathenishly spoken then the Pope in his Pontifical immediatly following jejunia quatuor Temporum commonly cald Ember-weeks Constit Can. Eccl. can 31. 2. And this be done in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth and in the time of Divine Service in the presence not only of the Archdeacon but of the Dean ibid. 3. And here it must be declared unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office the space of a whole year except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons 4. The Bishop before he admit any person to holy Orders shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands Can. 35. 5. None shall be admitted a Deacon except he be twenty three years of age and every man which is to be admitted a Priesâ— shal be full twenty four years old The Preface to the Form and Manner of making Priests and Deacons c. 6. The Archdeacon or his Deputy shall present unto the Bishop sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table such as desire to be ordained Deacons each of them being decently habited saying these words Reverend Father 7. The Bishop Take heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet for their learning The Arch Deacon shall answer I have enquired of them and also examined them and think them so to be 8. Then the Bishop shall say to the people Brethren if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons let him come forth in the name of God and shew what it is 9. Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the New Testament saying Take thee authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God 10. The Bishop with the Clergy and People shall sing or say the Litany O God the Father of Heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy on us That it may please thee to bless these they Servants ☞ We beseech thee to hear us good Lord. Come Holy Ghost our souls imspire And lighten with Celestial Fire c. 12. The Bishop shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receive the order of Priesthood the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees and the Bishop saying Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins thou doest retain they are retained 13. The Peace of God and the Blessing of God Almighty the Father Son and holy Ghost be amongst you and remain with you always Amen To which it were easie to adde other parallel particulars but these upon a slight view of the Roman Pontifical offering themselves being sufficient to confute that assertion of Whitgift and Mr. T. that the Book of ordering Ministers and Deacons is almost in no point correspondent to the Roman Pontifical we content our selves with them From whence the ingenuous Reader will soon determine to whom ignorance and rashness may justly be imputed We add 6thly The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven whose Sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of ordaining the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies in a long harangue not at all to the purpose giving us an account what Whitgift and Hooker say to this prâ—ctice confesses at last they offer some force to the Scripture to which they allude tells us those words may be used prayer-wise Answ 1. The Question is Whether in the particular instanc'd in there be an exact symmetry betwixt the Ordination of the present Ministers of England and the Priests of Rome This Mr. T. denies not but leads the Reader to the consideration of somewhat else 2. The use of the words John 20. 22 23. he grants to be an offering force to the Scripture and if so it is wicked and abominable to wrest the Scripture to our private interpretation is undoubtedly so 3. That they should be used prayer-wise is a most ridiculous evasion the manner of expression evinceth the contrary 4. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccles Polit. lib. 5. sect 77. as câ—ted by our Animadverter interprets it of the collation of the gifts of the holy Ghost which if we should interpret of the Office of Ministry it belongs as we have said to the Church not to such a thing as a lord-Lord-Bishop to collate We proceed in the Parallel 7thly The Popish Priests are not ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedâ—al City So the Priests of England To which Mr. T. replies 1. This is not alwayes so Answ I challenge him to give one instance of the contrary for these six or seven years last past 2dly It may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest Answ What may be is one thing what is another We say not only that it may be but that it ought to be yet we know it is not 'T is added in S. T. 8thly The Popish Priests take the care of Souls though nâ—t elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop so the Ministers of England To which our Animadverter This is not always so nor when so Popish Answ 1. The first is most notoriously false and we challenge Mr. T. to make it good if he can 2. the latter remains to be proved by him to assert it is not Popish is a piece of beggary this Animadverter is much used to What he hath before said is
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
chalenge the term of Pastors and Teachers this I had said was too great a debasement of their Lordships he tells us This is a Satyrical Sarcasm no proof Ans 1. However it is evidently true Pastors and Teachers we have already proved are Officers appertaining to one particular Church 'T is certainly a debasement of their Lordships who preside as petty Princes over hundreds of Pastors and Churches so called to be reduced to a laborious over-sight over one 2dly I had said in S. T. That their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Officers in that degree The Argument is this which Mr. T. may take time to answer If the Parochial Priests over whom the Bishops of England preside be such Pastors and Teachers as the Scripture mentions then the Bishops of England are not cannot be such for they are an Order and Degree above them to them as their Superiours they promise and swear fealty But tho former according to the judgment of the Church of England is true Therefore The Story he after tells us of a Presbyters having in case of infirmity Assistants who notwithstanding may be called a Teacher is so remote from the business in hand that though some would cry out Quis temperâ—t a risu For my part I heartily pitty him 1st This is known not to be the reason of the Bishops having Parochial Priests under them were they never so strong it were impossible they should perform the Office of Pastors to the several Congregations in England 2dly The Presbyter is not an Order above his Co-adjutor as is the case of the Bishops he is a Co-Presbyter one of the same degree with himself So that of this we shall I suppose hear no mere We add in S. T. That they pretend to be and are so accounted by some the Apostles Successors but if they derive their sâ—ccession through the Papacy 't is an evident Argument they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian head over many Countries as Protestants affirm In respect of their Office we prove they are not their Successors Because 1. The Apostles were immediately sent by Christ 2. Extraordinary Officers sent forth to preach the Gospel throughont the Nations of the world 3. We find no Apostles after them 4. None appointed by them to succeed them 5. None are qualified with gifts for the discharge of such an Office and Christ sends not forth servants in any imployment but he furnisheth them with gifts suitable thereunto This the summe To which our Animadverter pretends to answer Sect. 5. Chap. 3. 1. Apostles he grants they may not be reckoned yet 2. They may be their Successors 1st Dr. Owen of Schism Cap. 6. Sect. 55. grants That persons adhering to ordination by succession from Popish Bishops may be right worthy Ministers of the Gospel but not upon the account of that their Successional Ordination but the eminent gifts God hath vouchsafed them and the Lords people submitting themselves to them in the administration of Ordinances And the Author of S. T. denies not they succeed them as Christians and if so they may be heard as gifted brethren which was denied by him Chap. 2. Answ 1. How all this proves the Bishops of England to be the Successors of the Apostles in respect of their Office which was what he pretends to attempt the proof of I know not 2. I deny indeed that they may be heard as gifted Brethren Chap. 2. and give my reasons of my so doing which I have vindicated from this Dictators exceptions That we are to have communion with all that we cannot deny to be Christians in that wherein they act not as such but by virtue of an Office-power we know they have not received from Christ Mr. T. will not in hast attempt the proof of He asks Why may they not succeed them in Office Answ I wonder he should ask such a Question En Tabulas The reasons thereof are given in the place he undertakes the confutation of They were it seems too weighty for him he wisely lets them alone without burthening himself so far with them as to attempt their removal The Apostles Office was indeed no other than that mentioned Mat. 28. 19 20. Mar. 16. 15. but that was 1st An Office of Preaching not of Lording and Loytering 2dly Into it they were immediately invested by Christ 3dly They were to preach the Gospel through the Nations of the World not to stretch themselves upon Beds of Ivory in a Lordly Pallace which was as much their Office as Preaching the Gospel upon the account whereof Paul saith He was a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians Rom. 1. 14. Christ its true promiseth his presence with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But 1. I am not satisfied that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Consummation of this world is any more than the winding up or perioding of that Age. I am sure the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the space of 70 or 100 years and sometimes not near so many as Mark 13. 30. which came to pass within 50 years And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more than the perioding of the Jewish Paedagogie or Church state Heb. 9. 26. 2. I hope Christ is with them now so that there needs not a succession of persons in the same Office which we have proved there never was to whom Christ may make good his promise 3. The Lord promised Joshua never to leave him nor forsake him Josh 1. 5. This Promise he will not say doth necessarily suppose a succession of Officers in the place of Joshua which upon all accounts there was not The Apostle applies it to the Saints Heb 13. 5. And I am of the mind Christ doth as really fulfill that Promise Mat. 28 20. made originally to the Apostles when he vouchsafes his presence to the Saints to comfort quicken uphold defend them according as their exigencies do require as ever he did to the Apostles themselves So little reason is there of asserting the necessity of Officers as successors of the Apostles in their Office of Apostleship to vindicate the faithfulness of Christ in that Promise of his The succession we speak of which the present Ministers pretend to is a personal succession through Papacy i. e. that the Apostles ordained Bishops these ordained others downwards to this day a Catalogue of whom from time to time some pretend to That when Antichristianism overspread the world and the Pope as the Head thereof ordained and sent forth Ministers from whom they received their Office-power these should be notwithstanding not Antichristian is a fond conceit He could not communicate that he had not that he had any true power any other than a false Antichristian Office-power Mr. T. will not have the consideâ—ce to aver So that the whole fardle of words that ensue are not at all to the purpose A succession in doing the same work after them and preaching the same Gospel
Province with them did minister Justice and made his abode there ordinarily Whereupon by reason that men for their business made great concourse thither the Church was wont to furnish it of Godly Polity with the worthiest Bishop eâ—dued with gifts above his Brethren And they reposed in him such assiance that they did not only commit the Presidentship of their Assemblies to him Concil Antioch â—an 20. Chalced. can 19. But agreed also that none throughout all the Province should be made Bishop without his consent nor any weightier matter be done by them without him Concil Nic. can 4 6. Concil Antioc can 9. Now the Roman Empire was governed in such sort that the Circuits of the Lord-Presidents had many Provinces within them and were called Diocesses Through occasion whereof the Bishops of those Cities in which these Lievtenants of the Emperor were resident The state Ecclesiastical following the Civil Wolfgang Luzu Comment Reip. Rom. l. 2. c. 2. did grow in power too Neither were they only named Arch-Bishops and Patriarks of the Diocess i. â— the chiefest Bishops and Fathers of that Circuit which the Lieutenant ruled but also obtained that the Metropolitans of the Provinces in their Diocess should be likewise subject and obedient to them as Bishops were to Metropolitans So the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch had Prerogatives given him through the Diocess of the East wherein were seven Provinces Concil Const 1. can 2. Concil Antio in exord So nothing could be done in the Diocess of Egypt which under the Bishop had ten Metropolitans without the consent of the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. so it was granted to the Arch-Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople that the Metropolitans of the Diocesses of Pontus Asia Thracia within which were twenty eight Provinces should be ordained by him Finally so was it decreed that if a Bishop had any matter of Controversies with the Metropolitan of his own Province the Patriark of the Diocess should be Judge thereof Concil Chalced. can 9. 17. as also if any man did receive injury of his own Bishop or Metropolitan Thus were the Roman Popes as they are called now first Bishops over Elderâ— within their own City next Metropolitans over Bishops within their own Province Then Arch-Bishops and Patriarks over Metropolitans within their own Diocess And this is the Princely Diocess which I meant when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Arch-Bishop of the Princely Diocess but he was yet but an Arch-Bishop He was not universal Pope and Patriarch of the whole World For although the Patriark of Constantinople being puffed up because in his City the Emperor himself was resident he would be called the Patriark of the whole world as the Emperor was called the Lord of the world Greg. Regist l. 4. Epist 39. yet the Roman Patriarks Pelagius Gregory did withstand his Pride Rainolds Confer with Hart c. 8. Beza also Thes Geneves tells us that the Fathers in the distribution of Churches under Bishops Arch-Bishops c. followed the type or pattern of the Roman Emperor And the learned Brightman in Rev. 13. 4. tells us that they are the worshipers of the Dragon in the Beast who wonder at the Pâ—imacy for the Political Majesty of the Dragon granted by the Councel of Chalcedon Act. 16. Indeed in Clements Constitutions we find if possible a more filthy source from whence their original is asserted In the place where they were before first-Flamines Petâ—r commanded Patriarks to be placed and in Cities where before were Arch-Flamines arch-Arch-Bishops the rest were only Bishops That we had hâ—re in England twenty eight Head-Priests which they called Flamineâ— and three Arch-Priests among them which were called Arch-Flamines which had the oversight of their manners and were as Judges over the rest is known hence the pattern of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops Sect. 5. The office of Lord-Bishops contrary to express precepts of Christ Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22. 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. considered Of the titles of Dr. of Divinity c. The office of Lord-Bishops derived from and only to be found in the Papacy The Popes of Rome the head of Antichrist No Lord-Bishop till after Constantine Of the first Nicene Council whether there were any lord-Lord-Bishops before what difference betwixt lord-Lord-Bishops then and now Of the retention of the same office in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches The difference betwixt the Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches and our Bishops An Objection answered The Bishops of England act not in the matter of Ordination as Presbyters THat the office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture is the second part of our Minor Proposition which in S. T. we prove from Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. To which Mr. T. answers 1. That we shoot wide of the mark Answ This we have already replied to His instance of the Titles of Doctor of Divinity in the Schools is not at all to the purpose They pretend not to any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Elders and Churches by vertue of their being invested into such titles as our L-Bishops do 2dly He considers the particular Scriptures instanced in to which what to reply he seems to be much at a loss 1. He would have the words of the Evangelists not to be a precept shewing their duty but a prediction manifesting the event of what should be Answ 1. This is expresly contrary to the letter of the Text. 2. The Lordship Supremacy Superiority call it what you please is a Lordship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst themselves over one another that is interdicted and forbidden by Christ that it was lawful for them to exercise such a Supremacy this Animadverter will not say now this must be supposed if the words be not a precept but a prediction 3dly He expresly tells us in his Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 174. l. 14. That Superiority is in these words plainly forbidden 2ly He is inclined to think that if it be a precept it is a precept to the Apostles only not to others Answ 1. Then not to the Pope then Mr. T. palpably abuseth this Scripture in his Roman discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. p. 173. where from hence he argues and enveighs against the Pope's Supremacy But 2ly as good he may say that the great Doctrines of Self-denial frequently pressed by Christ upon the Apostles is a precept only to them 3ly We find the Apostle charging the same thing upon the Elders 1 Pet. 5. 3. who knew the mind of his Lord in this matter it 's to be thought as well as Mr. T. He tells us 3dly If it be a precept to others besides the Apostles whether to all Christians or only to Ministers of the Gospel and whether it forbid simply Dominion at all or tyranical Dominion is doubtful Answ And yet the first he positively affirms within ten or eleven lines
afterwards and here and in his Roman discussed asserts that 't is not tyrannical Dominion but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted So that the same thing is doubtful and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed 2dly Here he tels us that 't is an affectation of the Rule which a person may have and lawfully exercise that is forbidden there that the Dominion or Rule it self is interdicted which he would do well to reconcile and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation The sum whereof is Christ would have none amongst them superiour but all equal he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion but also any Dominion at all over one another which is saith he apparent 1. From the occasion of the words Christ forbids what they sought for but they sought for chief Dignity Seniority and priority of Order as do the Bishops of England 2dly From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden viz. Kings that had lawfull Authority and therefore such Rule is forbidden as the best Rulers used amongst the Nations 3dly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although sometimes meant of meer lordly forcible Rule against the will and good of the person ruled yet here it cannot be so meant sith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all and to have power at all over one another is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used still of Rule without abuse is forbidden 5thly It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another and to be beholden one to another as persons that could gratifie one another which doth imply superiority in some sort 6thly The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion Mat. 20. 26 27. rather Ministry and Service shews he would have none among them superiour but all equal 7ly Christ's propounding himself as their example only in service 8â—y He requires such a mutual debasement as takes away the taking to themselves priority of order or place or rule over one anotheâ— Mat. 20. 26 27. Mark 10. 43 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion Mat. 18. 1 2 3 4. Mark 9. 33. Luke 9. 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child that assumes not Empire but is humble and accounts others as equal to him 10ly From Luke 22. 28. that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them among themselves promises them a Kingdom afterward in recompence of their abiding with him in his temptations All which manifest 1. a Superiority interdicted 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest But 3. a Superiority of order over one another as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God or Ministers of a lower order as the Bishops of England exeâ—cise over them this Animadverter will never prove And if he were able so to do this would not justifie the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of 'T is true a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited he hath himself proved by ten Arguments but now repeated by us As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place viz. that is not imperiously commanding your own inventions in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards Gods People 3 Joh. 9. Answ 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops They command imperiously their own inventions to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place when there is not time for both as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord the whole Nation is witness 2. The Elders being interdicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Churcâ— of God as against the will of the Lord's People should by vertue of an Office-power exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers as a superiour order of Priesthood and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelates Office as is known though they too often abuse it by exercising it exorbitantly even contrary to their own Canons but a great a chief part of it wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise dominion over the People of God and that against their will by fore and violence to their utter undoing and that in execution of that office they have received and exercise according to their Canon Laws in their Courts Ecclesiastical We further prove in S. T. That the office of Lord-Bishops is Antichristian because derived from and only to be found in the Papacy none of the Reformed Churches have retained it the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her it 's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ in all ages We instance in several as Hierom the Churches of Helvetia c. To this Mr. T. replies 1. Though the latter Popes viz. from the time of Boniface the third about the year 606. be the head of Antichrist yet it doth not follow that the office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome Answ 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist till the time of Boniface the third this Animadverter will never prove 2dly Should it be granted him what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not nor what Officers were derived from them Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards When Constantine coming to the Throne the Man of Sin began by little and little according to the prophesie of Paul touching him 2 Thess 2. 7. to shew himself in the following Popes The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Letter viz. the Roman Pagan Emperours being removed out of the way about which time many report a Voice was heard Hodie Venenum c. This day Poyson is poured forth into the Church of Christ And from this time the noble and renowned
not to be an order above Presbytery Answ 1. Who they are that have thus acknowledged I know not 2. Mr. T. saith not that any of the present Bishops do so 3. If they did in words their practice contradicts it exercising jurisdictions over the Presbyters or Elders 3dly Nor to this saith he that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superior order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that convey's a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor by that hath power to convey iâ— the Grant is good Answ 1. But this is Mr. T. his mistake I say expresly though it should be granted that they act as Presbyters yet their act is not valid because they act not as Presbyters of the institution of Christâ— of which he afterwards takes notice Though 2dly Mr. T. will never be able to prove that the Bishop imposing hands as a Bishop and acting under that capacity yet being a Presbyter his act is valid For. 1. when a Bishop he is no longer a Presbyter but one of an higher order and degree as a Presbyter is no longer a Deacon when once made a Presbyter 2. As a Bishop he hath no authority from Christ at all to act in the business of imposition of hands therefore acting as such his act is invalid which his once being a Presbyter cannot make otherwise because he is not now so nor acts as such but avowedly the contrary 3. His instance of a persons conveying a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor is not pertinent For. 1. He hath originally and legally the same right if he be one as if both and pretends to a right to both in his conveyance 2ly Should he refuse his Executorship and make a Conveyance as Heir and he prove not to be so his Conveyance is naught Nay 3. if he make a Conveyance of what neither as Heir or Executor he hath any right to the Grant is undoubtedly not good This is evidently the case of our Lord-Bishops To the objection as proposed by us we answer 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of ordination is false 2. Contrary to their avowed principles Mr. T. replies This is uncertain Answ And he may as well say it is uncertain that the Sun shines at noon-day The least smatterer in the usages of the Church of England and principles of these Doctors thereof see and know it to be certainly true 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord-Bishop Mr. T. replies This is not true for the ordination of Suffragan-Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law Answ A weak proof of such a crimination A Suffragan-Bishop is a Titular-Bishop when he acts in the matter of ordination he represents the Lord-Bishop whose Suffragan he is And the Law accounts his act not his own but the act of the Lord-Bishop whose Representee hee is And this Mr. T. could not be ignorant of We say 3dly 'T is contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so ordained Strange that it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian ordination invalid What saith Mr. T. Why 1. They do not nullify ordination by a Presbytery in forrain Churches Answ But this is not at all to the purpose have they not done so at home To attempt to do so in forraign Churches where they have no power were but to expose themselves to greater contempt as busy Bishops indeed 2dly In England they do it because the Laws saith he require Episcopal Ordination Answ But Sir the question is not upon what accounts they have so done in England but whether their so doing be not a manifestation that they act not in the capacity of Presbyters in the business of Ordination for if they did they fore-condemn their own act in condemning Presbyterian ordination their ordination being upon this supposition onely such 2dly He grants The Law requires Episcopal ordination if so it doth sure tie them that act in it to think themselves Bishops to act with such an intention and under that notion which not many lines before he denyed We further answer in S. T. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end To which our Animadverter replies If this be held then all the Presbyters of the French Dutch and other Churches under Presbyterial goverment are not of Christs institution and so a separation avowed from all Protestant Churches except their own Answ 1. But this is no proof that the Bishops of England act in the matter of ordination as Presbyters of the institution of Christ which is the one and onely thing he should have heeded in his reply but of that he is wholly silent 2dly No doubt he thinks he hath sufficiently bespatter'd uâ— but if he account it a discredit to speak palpable untruths it will be his own 1. 'T is false that we avow separation from all Churches but those of our own way that our Assertion tends to such an end I challenge our Dictator to make good 2. The Presbyterians own particular Churches of the institution of Christ have their Presbyters fixed officers in and amongst them and that both in England and beyond the Seas What satisfaction he will think meet to make us for so foul an aspersion whereby he labours to render us odious to the Godly at home abroad we shall know by the next In the mean while we are ready to attend his motions in the next Chapter CHAP. V. Sect. 1. The fourth Argument in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers vindicated A twofold denial of the Offices of Christ Whether the Papists are guilty of a verbal professional denial of Christs Offices 'T is not lawful to hear such as are guilty of a verbal or real denial of Christs Offices The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ They do so who hearken not to that revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders of his House Deut. 18. 18 19. Act. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 17. Isa 9. 6. explained The vanity of Mr. T. his dictates to the contrary evinced IN Chap. 4th of S. T. we advance a fourth Argument against hearing the present Ministers which is this Those that deny any of the Offices of Christ are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers deny some of the Offices of Christ Therefore Before we come to clear the several
1 4. it was no sin to hear them they were not the strangers meant John 10. 5 c. I must crave leave to inform him of what he cannot be ignorant that he trifles and abuses his Reader egregiously 1. Christ did not only chiefly but solely enjoyn his Disciples to hear his Apostles and those that afterwards were sent by his appointment in his Name as acting in the ministration of the Gospel by vertue of an Office-power The instance of the scattered Brethren Act. 8. 1 4. is not at all to his purpose they were indeed to be heard but not as Ministers of the Gospel acting by Office-power in the promulgation thereof which they were not nor pretended to be but as gifted Brethren or private Christians receiving abilities from the Lord for that work and duty they were now providentially called unto 2dly Mr. T. knows that the Author of S. Test. is for the liberty of Prophesying though he seems to suggest the contrary in these expressions Nor did I ever think nor any man in the world in his wits that those scattered Brethren Acts 8. 1 4. were the strangers mentioned John 10. but some others as is proved in the Treatise under his consideration Those in Acts 8. were to be heard as was said as gifted Brethren not as Officers of Christ which they were not What this makes to proving the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers to which good service it seems transiently designed is not easie to understand who preach not so whom we cannot hear as such except we would put out our eyes and renounce our understanding when they avouch they preach as Ministers and we see them daily in the exercise of that which suppose an Office-power as Baptism and breaking Bread for the doing of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things must he speak to who considers Mr. T. his Papers for want of what is more material But perhaps Sect. 3. doth the business where he flourisheth on the head of it as if he were resolv'd to come up close to the matter in hand and demonstrate by irrefragable Arguments that Hearing as a duty incumbent upon the Saints in the time of the Gospel in the way appointed by Christ is not a meer positive or ceremonial Worship But perhaps saith he the Author means by instituted Worship such as is meerly Positive or as we use to speak Ceremonial such as Baptism and the Lord's Supper c. In which he hath almost hit the white of the Author's intendment and meaning as plainly expressed as he knew how which is this That however Hearing may put on the endument and property of Moral Worship yet as practised under the New-Testament it solely appertains to Positive Worship or the Institution of Christ and whoever performs it not as such I am apt to conceive worships not Christ at all therein What saith the Animadverter to this Why this Author seems to me very inconsiderate But seriously Sir I was well aware knew and well considered of what I writ in this matter He seemeth to me very inconsiderate is a pitiful Argument to evert the Assertion impleaded by Mr. T. it being not much to the purpose what seems to him or me to be considerate or otherwise These matters will be judged by others whether we will or no. As for what he adds 't is of no more weight than what went before That hearing of Preachers is a moral and perpetual Worship common to all times and persons He must 1. except Adam to whom at first it was no duty so to do except he make God the Preacher and then he altars the state of the question and afterwards 't is more than probable he preached to his Family not they to him 2. Except the time of ignorance God winked at when he sent no Preachers to the Gentile world but suffered them to walk in their own wayes 3. He had need to qualifie his Assertion a little better else it will not be found weight I am apt to think that hearing all Preachers and an indefinite Proposition as Mr. T. his is is equipollent to an universal is neither part of moral nor instituted Worship The Romans had their Flamins and Arch-Flamins from whence the pattern of Bishops and arch-Arch-Bishops Baal had his Chemarims our forefathers in England the Druides who in their solemn acts of Worship were clad in a white-garment you may call it a Surplice from whence 't is probable that rag had its original all Preachers yet the hearing of them no part I hope of moral Worship Yea the Devil was once a Preacher and of the Gospel too till Christ silenced him Luke 4. 41. yet I very much question whether should he do so again as 't is not impossible our Animadverter would assert it lawful to hear him There were also Preachers of the Circumcision whom Paul thought it no part of the Worship of God to hear the duty of Saints lying in the direct contrary part by vertue of the Apostolical Injunction Phil. 3. 2. So that 't is evidently a mistake of Mr. T. to say that hearing of Preachers is a moral and perpetual Worship common to all times and persons Whereas 4. the very truth is Though hearing the Word of God whenever and however it shall please him to dispense it be a moral and perpetual Worship yet hearing these or those Preachers appointed by him to dispense it is purely of Sovereign Institution It being free to the Lord to have sent his Word alway by the hands of his Angels as sometimes he did to his Children as well as otherwise which had he done it had been so far from being our duty to attend upon Men-Preachers that it had been our sin to have heeded any other than these Angelical ones I must desire the Animadverter by the way to correct one passage of his it being a gross mistake wherein he seems to intimate that I make the hearing the present Ministers such an instituted Worship of Christ as is meerly positive and adds that herein I seem to be very inconsidèrate Which I confess I should be if I did so Mr. T. knows I am so far from making it such an Instituted Worship of Christ that I say 't is no Worship of Christ at all either moral or instituted to hear them and exprofesso prove as well as I can the contrary which that it is not satisfactory to Mr. T. I cannot help Some men will be satisfied with little except what hath the countenance of Authority on its side However I never said that hearing the present Ministers is any part of the instituted Worship of Christ which had I believed to be so I had done very wickedly to have opposed it He adds that should it be granted me that the whole of Gospel-Institutions were to be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament yet would it be to the disadvantage of my self and the rest of the Separatists who use many places of the Old-Testament about
Not one Provincial or National Church but seven particular instituted Churches First To each Church is there a distinct Epistle written Secondly Each Church had its particular Officer or Angel to whom each Epistle was directed to be communicated to the Congregation for to them in it doth Christ by his Spirit speak Rev. 2. 7 11 17 29. 3. 6 13 22. 3dly Each Church received its particular commendation bore its particular burden The Evils found in one are not charged upon the rest nor the Good found in either imputed to them generally but severally 4thly The power of Excommunication or rejection of Scandalous Offenders seems to be seated in each Church severally and apart therefore no Provincial or National Churches but Congregational For the neglect of which power some of them are expresly rebuked by Christ Rev. 2. 14 15 20. which our English Annotators apply and that truly to a non-rejection of them by excommunication and cite 1 Cor. 5. 2 6. Alas a National Diocesan Provincial Church was not then thought of Diocesan Churches were first founded as 't is said but it were no difficult task to evince that their original is antidated some scores of years by Dyonisius Bishop of Rome about 280 years after Christ or as some will about 251 he was the first that appointed the limits and bounds of Parishes Here in England they received their rise and original from one Honorius Bishop of Canterbury Polyd. Virgil. de Invent. rer lib. 4. c. 9. Nay the truth is the Churches mentioned were so far from being a Church of a Region or Nation that they were not all that lived in the same Place City or Town appertaining to the Church there As for the Church of Ephesus one of the seven Paul speaks of it as distinct from the rest of the Inhabitants Eph. 1. 1. so doth Christ of the Church of Pergamos Rev. 2. 13. I know thy works and where thou dwellest i. e. among what manner of people thine abode is Psal 57. 4. 120. 5 6. Ezek. 2. 6. Phil. 2. 15. viz. a wicked graceless ungodly people even where Satan's seat is where Satan dwelleth who were sure no part of the Church The like may be said of the rest of them 'T is strange to me that when God calls them Churches any person pretending to sobriety should dare to aver them to be but one Touching the interpretation of Mat. 16. 18. 18. 17. there are indeed great debates as our Animadverter saith betwixt Protestants and Papists amongst Protestants also and Protestants The exposition the Papists give of Mat. 16. 18. who from hence would infer that Peter and after him the Bishop of Rome was made Universal Bishop is so frivolous that 't is not worth the mentioning 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super hanc petram is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super hunc Petrum upon this Rock will I build my Church we English-men think to be very different from upon St. Peter will I build i◠The Faith Peter confessed we take to be one thing his person another 2. We find not notwithstanding this promise that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles at which lofty rate these Gentlemen love to speak or Universal Bishop If he had been so Paul much forgot himself when he said 2 Cor. 11. 5. For I suppose Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conclude for certain I was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles And much more Gal. 2. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed Strange that he should carry it with no more respect to the Prince of the Apostles and Universal Bishop and head of the Church-Catholick-visible 3. But if these were granted them what is this to their Pope Why Peter was at Rome Answ That is uncertain Yet should it be granted he was there it would not in the least advantage them in their present cause 'T is most certain he was at Samaria Antioch Lydda Joppa Cesaria yet no Primacy or Supremacy affixed to either of them upon that bottom 4. Yea but he placed his Chair at Rome fixed his Seat there Answ This is false and untrue nor can they ever make it appear that he did so Yet if this should be granted they are never a whit the nearer the mark except they prove 1. That a succession in this universal Unlimited Archiepiscopal power was entailed to the Church of Rome and that so that 1. Though those who ascended that Chair came to be invested therein by bribery cozenage cruelty bloo◠whilst they possessed it were Hereticks and declared by Councils to be so and their Successors Conjurers Adulterers Idolaters Atheists Blasphemers bloody Persecutors destroyers of bodies and souls of men the veriest Villains and Wretches that ever the Earth bore 2. Though this Succession hath been interrupted by a Vacancy or Interregnum of some years polluted by a Woman a Whore delivered with her Cardinals about her in solemn Procession whence Papa parit Papam peperit Papissa Papillum By the setting up of Anti-Popes two or three at a time contesting to the pouring out of much Blood wasting destroying Villages Towns Cities Cursing excommunicating one another and all that adhere to each other for the Popedom or St. Peter's Chair yet when in it and those that succeed them be they as bad or worse than they that went before must infallibly be his successor which when they prove I will be a Papist and before they shall effect this it being the grand Principle of their Religion or Superstition rather it would become all that have or would be accounted to have the least spark of Wisdom remaining in them to have nothing to do with such a generation For my part I am abundantly satisfied that the Church there is neither the Church-Catholick visible nor any particular Church as such but the Invisible-Church or Elect of God Tell the Church Mat. 18. 17. hath divers interpretations put upon it according as the interests of some lead and encline them In the language of the Episcopalians it is Tell the Lord Bishop and his Consistory but this is such an heterogeneous piece so wild an interpretation that it would put a sober man if concern'd in them to a blush to hear it mentioned 1. There were no such creatures at that day nor for some hundreds of years after Alas there was somewhat else to do than to think of erecting Episcopal Seas and Consistories when they were every day fighting with beasts and made a spectacle to Angels and men for the Truth and Gospel-sake which was the state of the Church of God for the most part for the first three-hundred years and upwards as is known 2. One man as saith precious Cotton is not the Church nor can he represent the Church unless sent by them but so is neither the Bishop nor his Commissary 3. The Bishop ordinarily is no member of the Church where the offence is committed
as is made by marriage joyn our selves to the Lord c. so Isa 2. 3. Mich. 4. 2. Isa 44. 5. Zech. 8. 21 22 23. 2dly Accordingly we have the Churches of Christ in the New-Testament practising and commended for their so doing as acting therein according to the will of God Acts 2. 41 42. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3dly The several names and titâ—es given unto particular Churches evince as much Every such Church is called 1. A Body 1 Cor. 12. 27. Col. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 4 5. Eph. 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18 21. Now 't is not the multitude or number of members whether many or few that constitute or make a Body We say not if we come into a Field where a Battel hath been fought and find an Arm in one place a Leg in another an Hand in a third c. though we meet with as many members scattered up and down as are in the body yea though thrown together in heaps that here is a body no no 't is Rudis indigestaque moles Their union each with other and coalescency in one is that which gives them that denomination Particular Saints scattered here and there or casually coming together are not nor can they be called the Body of Christ their union each with other by their free and mutual consent is that which denominates them so to be 2. An House or Temple Heb. 3. 6. Ephes 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Mr. T. knows who have thought the world was made by the casual confluence of Atoms he doth not sure think that a casual concurrence of people professing the Name of the Lord without more ado are or can become an House or Temple for him 3. A City a Kingdom Eph. 2. 19. Mat. 21. 43. Heb. 12. 28. Joh. 18. 36. That a man should be any way a member of these but by his free consent cannot be asserted with the least shew of reason 4. A Fraternity or Brotherhood Zech. 11. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. compared with chap. 5. 2 13. 5. A Candlestick in allusion to Moses his Candlesticks Exod. 25. 31. wherein though there were many shafts yet they did all coalesce in one Rev. 1. 11 12 20. All which as they import Aggregation or a solemn union so they clearly evince that this cannot be but by free and mutual consent 4. Besides we find Christ promising his Presence to his Church and People thus aggregated or gathered an Argument of his well-pleasedness therein Mat. 18. 20. which accordingly he makes good to the Churches of Asia as to the rest Rev. 1. 13. which we have proved to be particular Congregational Churches That they were separated from the World and its Worship gathered together by their own free consent for the worshipping God Mr. T. cannot deny There were no Laws to compel them hereunto but the contrary So that 3dly we may righteously retort this Animadverters Argument upon himself There cannot be a true Church where those things essential to a true Church cannot be found But in National Churches in general in the Church of England in particular those things that are essential to a true Church cannot be found Therefore The Major is Mr. T 's The Minor we prove Right matter and form is of the essence of a true Church both wanting in the Church of England 1. The right matter Mr. T. denies not to be visible Saints visible Drunkards Swearers Whoremongers covetous persons are not such yet of such as these is the Church of England mostly composed 2dly The form of a true Church we have manifested to consist in separation from Worldly Formal Antichristian Worshippers gathering together by free consent into a Church-state or particular Societies for the Worship and Service of God neither of which can be asserted of the Church of England Much of the Worship of the Nations of Antichrist at least their rites and modes of Service is retained in it And into that Church-state such as it is in which they are fixed did they never enter by their free and voluntary consent but by the Laws of the Kingdom were they at first I speak of their National-Church-state that the Gospel was early whether by Joseph of Arimathea or some one of the Apostles is not material preached in England that then a true Church or Churches were here planted I grant but this is nothing to their present frame as a Church-National compell'd thereunto and by severe Laws retained therein to this day From which as from the Lordly Prelacy the most sober People of the Nation do every-where groaning being burdened long to be delivered What follows will receive a speedy dispatch 1. 'T is true the defect of outward order i. e. of every outward order though of the institution of Christ doth not nullifie the Church but want of that order which is of the essence of the Church as we have evinced to be the case of the Church of England doth so 2dly Mr. T 's instances of the disorders in the Church of Corinth yet a true Church are so evidently impertinent that the bare mentioning them is confutation sufficient The Church of Corinth was a rightly constituted Church made up of visible Saints 1 Cor. 1. 1. gathered together into a particular body 1 Cor. 12. 27. meeting together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place for the Worship of God 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. Some disorders found amongst this Church did not nullifie it Ergo the defect of that Order that is instituted by Christ ad esse to the very existence and being of a Gospel-Church as is the case of National Churches doth not nullifie them will not in hast be made good When Mr. T. proves the sameness of constitution betwixt the particular Church of Corinth and the National Church of England his instance of disorders amongst the Corinthians will be acknowledged pertinent but till then he will not himself upon second thoughts say it is so The having of Natioâ—al Rulers Ecclesiastical either single persons or in a Synod or Convocation make not a false Church saith the Animadverter Answ 1. But should this be granted it would not follow that a National Church is not a false Church which it may be upon other accounts though upon the account hereof it should be acqâ—itted But 2ly National Officers or Rulers Ecclesiastical in whom all Church-power is stated as Arch-Bishop and from thence derived to Diocesan Bishops and by them communicated in part to the ordinary Parish-Priests as is the case of the National Ecclesiastical Officers of England are false and Antichristian Officers and Ministers we prove chap. 3. of the S. T. That a National Church so denominated from their subjection to these should be a true Church is beyond the reach of my understanding What he addeth touching Synods owned and submitted unto by those of the Congregational way and Churches of a greater number and at a greater distance than could meet in one place every Lord's day is
that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren Of which he gives us three learned reasons 1. Because the withdrawing themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly cannot be meant of their excluding themselves from Hearing Praying or receiving the Lords Supper if such an one be present Answ Right but though this withdrawment from such a Brother cannot be meant of exclusion from hearing whilst he is present yet I hope it may from hearing him who walks thus disorderly The same may be said of receiving the Lords Supper If he be there as a looker-on meerly this ought not to hinder any from waiting upon Christ in that institution though the Church of England in imitation of the old Pagan custom of the Druides c. of old interdicts the Priests saying service whilst an excommunicate person is there but if he shall be forced upon the Congregation as a member to joyn with them in that ordinance and much more as their Minister to celebrate it as is our case it is the duty of the Saints to surcease the performance of that duty for that season It was the keeping themselves from being polluted that caused them to sever from him that reason remaining which it doth till he hath testified his repentance their withdrawment is to continue He adds 2ly That the withdrawment mentioned 2 Thes 3. 6 14. is only from arbitrary communion in entertainments c. Answ This is an old shift of Mr. T. we have already refuted He further tells us 3ly If we omit it we omit the Worship of God and so break his Commandments Answ 1. This is a meer petitio principii we deny the ministration of the Sacraments according to the rights of the Church of England to be the Worship of God strictly so called 2ly There 's no need through grace of omitting the Worship of God if we worship not with them there are meetings of his people whither we may have recourse to worship him in his own way To what follows in this chapter we have already answered We attend his advance towards the discussion of our third argument of which in the next chapter CHAP. IIII. Sect. 1. Such as act from an Antichristian calling not to be heard proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies Who is Antichrist what is Antichristian explained The Ministers of England derive their Office-power from the Papacie The Bishops of England Petty-Popes 'T is unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist therefore upon the teachings of such as act by a power derived from him Christ calls his People to separate from every thing of Antichrist Rev. 18. 4. and 14. 9. explained Of trying the Spirits 1 Joh. 4. 1. of Christs instituting Officers of his owâ— No promise of a blessing in attending upon an Antichristian Ministry IN Chap. 3. of S. T. a third Argument is produced against hearing the present Mâ—nisters viz. Those that act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling are not to be heard but to be seperated from But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling Therefore The Major is evident for 1. The Power Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and calling of Christ not to separate from such as act by vertue of such an Office-power is to stand by and plead for Antichrist against Christ The sum of what Mr. T. answers hereunto is If by Antichristian Power Office and Calling be meant the Papal Power and the acting in the holy things be by preaching the doctrine of the Trent Council in the points determined therein against Protestants by administring Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and Discipline according to the Canon-Law of the Popes the Major is granted and the Minor denied But if by Antichristian power c. be meant by vertue of ministry according to the Liturgy Articles of Religion and Homilies of the Câ—urch of England from the Ordination and Licence of the Bishops his Major is denied that which he calls Antichristian is not truly such and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite and contrary to the Power Office and Calling of Christ Answ 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Animadverter tells us found only in the Epistle of John and principally 1 John 2. 18. where the Apostle distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the mean Antichrists and the main Antichrist The best interpretation of the word seems to be a false Christ or â— Counter-Christ one that under the pretence of being for Christ doth really oppose Christ the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in opposition and composition signifies For in the Scripture as Mat. 2. 22. Acts. 13. 7. and in Classical Writers as Homer Hesycheius c. in his Offices Ministry Discipline Worship He is Antichrist that under the pretence of acting for Christ doth indeed though covertly act against him in his name and under the vizard of his authority That is Antichristian that though it be pretendedly for and from Christ it really is not And in this sense the Major is to be understood Those that act in the holy things of God viz. Praying Preaching Administration of Sacraments c. by vertue of a Power Office and Calling that is not though pretendedly really from Christ are to be separated from as we plainly declare in the first proof of the Major proposition in S. T. which Mr. T. would have disproved if he could But in the stead thereof he labours to raise a dust with a multitude of words before the eyes of the Reader that he might not be able to perceive wherein the weight of the Argument lay 2ly He acknowledges the Major to be true if understood of the Papal Power Office and Calling so that he which acts in the Holy things of God i. e. in Preaching for whether it be the doctrine of the Trent Councel or otherwise is not in this case considerable for if he act from an Antichristian Office-Power 't is not his preaching Truth which would make that Antichristian Office-Power Christian administration of Sacraments according to the Roman Missal and discipline according to the Canon-Law by vertue of an Antichristian Papal Power is not to be heard but in this sense he denies the Minor And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of the man doth he not know that they derive their Office-Power from the Papacy he is not so ignorant as noâ— to know it Do not the Bishops of England exercise the same power over the Clergy and Laity as they are called thereof as the Pope doth over his so that they are upon the matter Papilli Petty-Popes Is this power Antichristan in the Papacy and not so in the Prelacy Is not the manner of administation of Sacraments in use amongst us taken out of the Popish Missal Mr. T. knows
already answered We add 9thly The Popish Priests wait not the Churches call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be ordained Priest and giving money for their Letters of Ordination so the Priests of England Mr. T. replies To offer a person's self for ordination is in some case a duty 1 Tim. 3. 1. Isa 6. 8. Answ 1. The Scriptures produced prove not his assertion Isa 6. 8. is sufficiently remote from any such thing there 's not the least mention of Ordination therein it s only a testimony of Isaiah's readiness to obey the voice of the Lord in going forth to bear a testimony for him against an untoward rebellious people 1 Tim. 3. 1. only tels us that he that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work i. e. as say our Annotators is inwardly moved by the Spirit of the Lord thereunto which he may do and yet I hope wait the Churches call thereunto Besides 2ly Should this be granted it signifies little till he prove that it 's the duty of any with the neglect of the Churches call to this Office to seek ordination thereunto from an unscriptural Prelate which is that we charge upon them which Mr. T. knows they do He tells us 2dly Giving money for their Letters of Ordination is only Wages to the Register for writing Answ 1. Be it so that they give money for their Letters of Ordination is all that is asserted by us which Mr. T. grants they do 2. 'T is well if there be no Simony as it 's call'd found amongst them 3. If provision be made against the Registers exacting over-much by the Canons of the Church of England he informs us that the same provision is made by the Popish Trent-Council The Parallel in this particular holds good We say 10thly The Popish Priests are ordained to their Office though they have no Flock to attend upon So the Priests of England Mr. T. replies The Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. even the Trent-Council hath made some provision thereabout Answ 1. Mr. T. doth well to consociate the Canons of the Church of England and the Church of Rome in the Trent-Council together they are in not a few things near of kin 2. However I cannot but stand astonished at his confidence in telling us that the Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title according to Can. 33. when that Canon saith expresly That they may if a Fellow or in right as a Fellow or to be a Chaplain in some Colledge in Oxford or Cambridg if a Master of Arts of five years standing that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities if to be shortly admitted either to some Benefice or Curatship then void or if the Bishop do after his admission into the said office keep and maintain him with all things necessary till he prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living 3. But it may be the Animadverter by title means some one of those things mentioned To which I shall only say that if so he doth openly prevaricate pretends to answer to what he speaks not one word such Titles are supposed to be without a Flock to attend upon What he adds of Ministers being necessary for Armies c. is nothing to the purpose This proves not that they may be ordained Ministers without a Flock to attend upon which they may have and by them be sent forth for the works mentioned for a season We know it hath been the practice of the Churches so to do 2. Privâ—te Brethren may act for the supply of the services mentioned and frequently have done so nor indeed do I conceive how any can act therein in any other capacity Which is not incongruous to Acts 23. 2. as this Animadverter suggests which speaks not a tittle of their ordination to the Office of Ministry which they had before but only a solemn commending of them by Fasting and Prayer to the Blessing of the Lord by the Church in the Service they were now setting upon in which they testified their consent by the laying on their hands as say our Annotators To the 11th Parallel viz. That the Priests of England must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary as the Priests of Rome Mr. T. only saith That 't is true at their institution into Benefices they do so but it is so bounded that it is not intolerable 't is nothing like that which is required of the Papists Answ 1. The Parallel herein betwixt the English and the Popish Priests is acknowledged which is all we affirm 2. That the Oath is tolerable that 't is nothing like the Oath of Canonical Obedience tendred to the Popish Priests is only affirmed by Mr. T. without proof that was the copy and pattern of this as he cannot be ignorant The 12th Parallel touching their leaving their Benefices for advantage-sake without consent of the People The 13th touching their special Licence to preach without which they must not from â—he Prelates though thereunto before ordained The 14th touching their subjection to be silenced by the Prelates betwixt the Ministers of England and Rome he grants to be true nor saith he any thing by way of reply that deserves the taking notice of To the 15th viz. the Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Pastors to Archdeacons Archdeacons to lord-Lord-Bishops lord-Lord-Bishops to arch-Arch-Bishops so the Priests of England Our Animadverter replies 1. Inequality is judged to be in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia Answ But this rather proves there equality to each is a several Epistle directed whereas had there been one Arch-Bishp or Superintendent over them one Epistle had been sufficient and had been no doubt directed to him He adds 2dly It hath been in some sort in all well-ordered Churches and is necessary to setled order Answ These are his dictates which he is not at leasure to prove The Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes of Corinth Ephesus were as I remember well-ordered Churches yet cannot be manifest any inequality amongst their Elders No Superintendent Lord-Bishop or Arch-Bishop as I read of 2dly What thinks he of the Church of the Waldenses were they well-ordered Churches They were from the beginning without this Superiority of Elders one above the other The like may be said of most or all the Reformed-Churches The Churches of Helvetia reckoning up the degrees of Arch-Bishops Suffragans Metropolitans Deans Subdeans tell us plainly they are not sollicitous about them That the Apostles Doctrine touching Ministers is sufficient for them cap. Confes. Helvet poster c. 18. And afterward there is one and the same equal Power and Function in all the Ministers of the Church and though in process of time one was chosen from amongst the rest to preside in
which yet they do but rarely if at all is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates They care not for Preaching hinder oppose it many of them dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit that would shake their Kingdom and utterly overturn and demolish it so they may have their Lordships Pleasures and Pallaces 'T is not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy for however it cannot be so called because the Apostles were the Formers of it which they were not yet the matter thereof being except in one Article bottom'd upon the Scriptures I ought to confess it But this is remote from what he is pleading for viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin which I say still whilst the Bishops pretend to they do therein proclaim their shame and yeeld the matter in controversie though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him especially to have removed out of the way viz. The Arguments produced to evince That the Apostles as Apostles had no successor in that their Office Which if it remain good the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successorâ— as Apostles He adds 5thly That Bishops as a Superior order or degree above Presbyters were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ he thinks can hardly be made good but he wisely reâ—reats with a Protestation that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point The truth is he knows it hath been proved and that with that strength of evidence that he cannot bear up against That Clemens his not takeing notice of them as distinct from Presbyters is ballanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles which I am perswaded he rejects as spurious and counterfeit I am sure it were easie to manifest them to be so it is already done by others is such a pitiful covert that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity when he knows not what to say Lombards words import he grants that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known till after the Apostles dayes and if so they are no order of divine institution in which he once more perfectly yeelds the cause they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church Lombard means the Churches in the dayes of the Apostles his words seem to import somewhat more And Bellarmins himself acknowledgeth that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders And Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor Anicetus Pius Telesphorus Xistus who was almost three hundred years after Christ Bishops of Rome Elders And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop there was of old no difference That such Bishops as are now in the Roman Church in the English Church we may as truly say were from the beginning is most false and can never be proved There were then more Bishops i. e. Pastors of one Church Act. 20. 17. contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284. But Mr. T. tells us 'T is enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture though not their Superiority Answ And is this your pleading for your Clients Seriously Sir you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own pleadings at every turn The question is whether the office of lord-Lord-Bishops which as such consists in there Superiority jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England be of the institution of Christ Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not Very good what needed so many words to no purpose 't is well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of Lord-Bishop is not of Christs institution The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them but thinks we misapply them But certainly if as the Dr. saith a Primary Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches viz. such as are Diocesan that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations in the Empire he that hath but half an eye will see that hence it follows that the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches was the result of the designs of men to accommodate the state and frame of the Church to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctors concession it s notoriously known and acknowledged by several others The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Common-wealth so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil so were they of the same Church or Diocess in respect of the Spiritual Government saith Rainoldes Confer with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed That if any new City by the Authority of the Emperor was erected that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Publick form Hence by the same Council Constantinople receives the Primacy because it was New Rome Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason But that you may understand how the Pope incroached on Bishops by degrees untill of an Equal he became a Soveraign first over a few next over many at last over all I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops somewhat higher and shew how Christian Cities Provinces and Diocesses were alotted to them First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church Act. 14. 23. through every City Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers Act. 20. 28. They to the intent they might the better do it by common councel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their actions And this is he whom afterward in the Primitive Church the â—athers called Bishop i. e. the President of the Presbyters who was thâ— Bishop of the chiefest City whom they called the Metropolitane For a Province as they termed it was the same with them that a Shire is with us And the Shire-town as you would say of the Province was called Metropolis i. e. the Mother-City In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire So the Ruler of the
Witnesses of Christ the Waldenses state the Defection of the Church Catal. Test 1509. From which time at least whatever Offices or Rites were introduced being introduced by the Antichrist that was now gradually revealing himself are justly to be accounted Antichristian 3dly Would Mr. T. had told us what Officers they are that are only continued in the Church of Rome that are of divine appointment that we might have considered the truth of his suggestion Lord-Bishops we prove are not such He further tells us 2dly That it is not true that the office of Lord-Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy 1. It is manifest in the first Nicene Council can 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord-Bishops with their Office Answ 1. That they were before is not so easily proved Hither as to their source and spring are they usually referred The learned Hooper tells us A Bishop ought to be a Bishop only of one City it is to be lamented that the Episcopal Office is so greatly degenerated Iâ— was not so from the beginning when Paul commanded Titus to constitute Bishops through every City And certainly if the ancient love toward the people did flourish in us we should confess that there is more to be done in one City than can easily be performed by the best 'T is sufficiently known that the Primitive-Church had no such Bishops as were over more Cities or Congregations than one before the time of Sylvester the first In whose time was the first Nicene Council 2dly That because the first Nicene Council acknowledged Metropolitane and Lord-Bishops therefore they are not derived from the Papacy is not so easily demonstrated This Council was in oâ— about the year 315. Long before the Spirit by which the body Antichristian is animated visibly manifested it self not once nor twice aâ— is known What other spirit shewed it self in Victor who excommunicated the Eastern Bishops for not keeping Easter with him at the same time which brawl continued till the first Council of Nice which sides with Victor an Argument that they were acted by the same spirit 3dly What assurance will our Animadverter give us that this Canon as well as some others which confessedly are is not foisted into the Acts of that Council by persons of after-ages He is not ignorant that Protestants plead this against the Papists who for the establishment of the Tyranny of the Roman Primacy produce a fictitious Canon of the Nicene Council 4thly 'T is incumbent upon him to prove that such Metropolitane Bishops and lord-Lord-Bishops as are now in England were in and before the first Nicene Council which he knows to be false and untrue 1. The English Episcopacy is an order above the order of Presbyters then Episcopacy and Presbytery was accounted one and the same order 2. Ruledom and Jurisdiction is the peculiar flower of the Garland of our English Episcopacy of that it was not so As the Presâ—yters were to do nothing without the Bishop so neither was the Bishop to do any thing without the Presbyters He adds 2. That in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued Answ 1. Nor do we affirm the contrary that we should do so is not necessary The Greek-Churches were at the first involved in the same Apostasie with the Roman at least with respect to the matter in debate betwixt us 2. We only say that 't is only found in the Papacy with respect to the Reformed-Churches none of them have continued it He therefore adds 3. That it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches Reformed that have separated from the Papacy in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents Answ 'T is indeed thus pleaded by Downham c. who 't is like took up the story of Hadrianus Saravia a known Patron of the Popish Hierarchy who asserts it in a way of reproach to the Lutheran Reformation whether it be truly pleaded or otherwise Mr. T. tells us not though he cannot be ignorant of the contrary The Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches is exceeding different from the Office of our Bishops 1. Their Superintendent is only as a President or Chairman for the preservation of order in an Assembly 2. He is only so during the Session out of it he exerciseth no authority at all more than the rest of his Co-Presbyters as do the Bishops of England 3. He is subject to the Presbytery our Bishops Lords over them 4. He differs not in order and degree from the rest of the Ministeâ—â— as do the Bishops of England 5. He is but a Pastor of one particular Church our Bishops are of scores hundreds He proceeds after the same rate of confidence and verity 4. That it is false that the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by the false Antichristian Church Answ 1. 'T is much he doth not produce one instance of this Assertion and yet so confidently avers it which could he have done he would as well have proved it false as said it was so 2dly For the confirmation of the truth of what he saith is false we have produced several Testimonies his Answer thereunto such as it is we have already taken notice of it and manifested its lightness and vanity He adds This is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by their reception at the Synod of Dort Answ 1. What the Epistles are he intends what the Reception mentioned is not of such import as to spend our time in enquiring thereabout 2dly That they have rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops is known they have published their dislike and detestation of it in their Confession to the world What respect any of them give them either in point of civility or as Messengers or persons sent from the King or perhaps not being truly informed what the Jurisdiction and Office is they exercise in their private Letters or otherwise is not considerable in the matter in hand The Office of Lord-Bishops or a superiority of Order above Presbyters or Elders they absolutely condemn as we have proved We add in S. T. One Stone of Offence must be removed out of our way It is said that though Lord-Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so for they are also Presbyters and ordained as Presbyters To which Mr. T. subjoyns 1. There is nothing replied to the allegation that Bishops ordain with Presbyters Answ 1. Nor is there any such allegation in the objection proposed 2ly If there were it s not so considerable as to deserve to be taken notice of They are only assistants to the Bishop 't is he not they that sets them apart admits them into Sacred Orders as they heathenishly call them He adds 2dly Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy
Miracles by the Apostle there had been no need to have assembled the Church but it was necessary that to the doing of this act the Church be assembled vers 4 5. 5thly He is to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved which is not likely to be effected by Satans Ministry 6thly 'T is more than probable the Church did what the Apostle commanded them to do Now this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick rebuke inflicted by many which many cannot signifie the Apostle but the Church of Corinth all which evince that it was a Church-act and no more than what is practised by the Churches of Christ at this day Though 't is true it is more than the ordinary Excommunication of the Church of England by a Chancellour or Proctor several miles from the Parish-Church to which the person is related and it may be unknown to them an argument they own not this Institution of Christ We add in S. T. as another Institution of Christ 4. That the Officers of his appointment are only such as these Pastors Teachers Elders Deacons Widows or Helpers who as they are in one particular Congregation so they have not any Lordly authority over each other Ephes 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7. and 16. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. Acts 6. 5. and 15. 2. and 20. 17. and 28. 21 28. 1 Tim. 3. chapt and 5. 9 10 17. This Law of Christ they subject not we say unto set up other Officers and Offices To which Mr. T. 1st There were other Officers given by Chrst besides these mentioned viz. Apostles therefore these are not the only Officers of his appointment Answ 1. Had he said therefore These were not the only Officers of his appointment he had spoken more properly Apostles were of his appointment are not now as we have proved 2. We are speaking of ordinary fixed Officers in the particular Churches of Christ which the Apostles were not so that his instancing these and inference thereupon is frivoâ—ous and impertinent If these had Superiority over others it will not advantage the Animadverter except he can prove the Bishops in respect of Office to be their Successors which he will never be able to do That because the Elders mentioned 1 Tim. 5. 17. must be accounted worthy of double honour therefore they were of a Superiour order of Ministry to lord it over the rest is one of Mr. T. his Consequences that a youth of half a years stâ—nding in the University would be ashamed of Besides Sir the double honour is due to the working Presbyter not the lording loytering Bishop as is the custom of England The person mentioned 2 Cor. 8. 19. was chosen by the Churches for the present expedition was no standing fixed Officer amongst them therefore appertains not to our present disquisition He adds Whether all the Officers and Offices be rightly ordered in the Church of England is not our present inquiry Answ But this is no small part of our present enquiry for if they are not rightly ordered they are not Officers of Christ if they are not such 't is evident they reject this Institution of his set up other Officers and Offices What he tells us is notoriously false viz. That the present Ministers of England have neither Name nor thing required by Christ in this Law is manifestly true Their Parish Ministers are called Priests not Pastors or Teachers 'T is true they have those are called Doctors which signifies Teachers but that is a School not a Church-Title they are call'd so with respect to an Academick degree not with relation to any particular Church or Churches in whom they are placed They have those thaâ— are called Deacons but they are not such Officers as Christ calls so those that come nearest to these are those they call Church-wardens oâ— Overseers of the Poor But they have the thing the Office of preachâ—ng the Gospel continues with them Answ 1. 'T were well if it could be said of many of them that they preached the Gospel Alas they understand it not 2dly However they have not the Office as we prove whilest he suggests the contrary he doth but beg the Question Whether the Assertion That they set up other Officers and Offices as if in open contempt and defiance of Christs Authority be very unrighteously said others will judge I am sure as was said in S. T. They are such of which it may righteously be said he did at no time command them neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do And I challenge Mr. T. to give an instance of the contrary We remark a 5th Institution of Christ in S. T. viz. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ according to Acts 1. 15 23 26. and 6. 1 2 3 5. and 14. 23. and 9. 26. which we find the Church in the practise of for some Centuries of Years As the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth Martin Luther Cyprian Lambard Peter Martyr Bullinger Gualter Zanchy Calvin Beza the united Brethren of Bohemia manifest Of which at large we there treat This Institution of Christ we say the present Ministers conform not to Mr. T. replies 1. He finds not this to be an Appointment of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned Answ Whether it be or not let the Reader judge the impertinency of his Answer to the three first we have already shewed Acts 9. 26 27. proves thus much That 't is in the Churches power to reject any one or refuse to receive him as a Preacher amongst them till they have received satisfaction touching him which doth not a little demonstrate the power of Election of their own Officers to be seated in them For he assayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples as a Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel as the word signifies Acts 5. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 16 17. but they would not suffer him so to do till better informed of him and then he comes in and goes out at Jerusalem ver 28. i. e. is owned received by them What follows is a repetition of what he had before said Sect. 22. in answer to the Preface to which we have there spoken Clemens speaks fully to our purpose Ministers must be appointed by famous and discreet men with the good liking and consent of ALL the Church without which it seems they could not be constituted In that which follows in Clemens his Epistle touching a readiness in the Elder or Pastor to depart or return according as the multitude of Believers should determine We have sure a proof that the choice or rejection of a Pastor is seated in them That Luther Bullinger meant no more than the not obtruding unable Ministers on the Churches of Christ is Mr. T. his mistake They both assert the Churches priviledge in the choice of their own Pastors Their voice saith
themselves considered But this is but one Doctors opinion retracted by him de Sac. Euch. l. 4. c. 29. where he asserts that which is contrary thereunto should two or three more be remarked of the same mind with him they amount but to a few in comparison of the generality of mankind otherwise minded The Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters we do in S. T. demonstrate Three things are in this matter argued and evinced 1st That the Romish Church are Idolaters their Worship in the complexion thereof Idolatry This we prove at large and our Animadverter grants it to be true 2dly That the present Ministers of England act by virtue of an Office-power from this combination and Assembly of Idolaters This they themselves will not deny Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry This we argue at large in S. T. and Mr. T. after a great many words grants their succession from Rome But adds 2dly That this is not one of their best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry Answ 1. When they or he for them produce a better it shall be considered this is what they especially plead an Argument 't is one of their best pleas in their account however our Animadvertâ—r thinks otherwise Nor indeed 2dly Do I see how their Episcopal Ordination can be justified without it He conceives 3dly That they will deny that they act by virtue of an Office-power received by succession from the combination of Idolaters in the Church of Rome Answ 1. The derivation of their succession from the Papacy they deny not This their succession pleaded for is a succession of Ministry That they should be so absurd as to acknowledge a succession in respect of their Ministry from them and deny the reception of their Office-power from them which is nothing more or less than their Office of Ministry I cannot imagine What follows in this Sect. hath already been replied to and therefore we shall not further trouble the Reader therewith We say in S. T. 3dly That the present Ministers offer up to God a Worship meerly of Humane composition as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry being the Worship of that Church whose worship is so the whole of it being taken out of the Popes Portuis with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters viz. their Holy Vestments Bowings Candles Altars which are the Rites of the Idolatrous Church of Rome and were introduced from thence by Austin the Monk cannot be denied And hence conclude That the present Ministers acting in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering up to him a Worship meerly of Humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of Idolatry What Mr. T. replies hereunto Sect. 14. hath for the most part already been removed out of the way 1. The Forms of Prayer in the Service-Book by their Imposition are made an essential part of Worship as we have proved as such they are not agreeable to Gods Word not of Divine but meerly humane composition 2. Had these Forms never been in the Mass-Book being made by their imposition a part of Worship they had been superstitious Idolatrous being an open violation of the second Commandment 3. I wonder at the forehead with which 't is affirmed that the Rites and Modes used in the Church of Rome that are Idolatrous are not observed and used What thinks he of bowing at the Altar the Name of Jesus which Dr. Willet acknowledgeth to be superstitious Idolatrous Synops Papism the 9th gener Contro p. 492 493. as do our Protestants generally kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament the Cross in Baptism These are some of the Rites used in the Papacy and as so used Mr. T. will not I presume deny them to be Idolatrous 4. The learned Muccovius proves what he asserts That the sacred Rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are †So say our Divines generally to whom Zâ—nchie Junius Pelican Calvin Beza Farrel yea Lyra though a Papist Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Danaeus Zepperus Sadael not to be retained because all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided from Lev. 19. 19 27 28. 21. 5. Deut. 14. 1. The things there interdicted were in themselves indifferent the ground of their interdiction was because they were the sacred Rites of Idolaters as say Salmasius Herodotus l. 3. Maimonides Treat of Idolatry chap. 12. Sect. 7 11. Vatablus Fagius c. I cannot upon this occasion but remind the judicious Reader of what the learned Zanchy writes touching this matter to Q. Eliz. l. 1. Epist p. 431. 'T is not honest saith he that those things which have a long time been used in idolatrous Worship if they are things in themselves indifferent should be retained in the Church with the hazard of the Salvation of the Godly The brazen Serpent which was appointed by the Lord and indeed for the Salvation of Israel because the Isruelites abâ—sed it contrary to the Word of God was by the good King Hezekiah taken away who is greatly praised for it how much more should things and Rites indifferent instituted by men when they decline to Superstition and other abuses be removed which Mr. T. may answer at his leisure Sect. 6. A third Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolatâ—rs That worshipping God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is Idolatry WE advance in S. T. a third Argument to prove the Ministers of England Idolaters which is thus formed Adoration in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is idolatrouâ— such as so adore or worship God are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature Therefore The major proposition we say is generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxime they make use of and stop the mouths of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the Creature The truth of the minor proposition their bowing and cringing at the Altar their kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament do evince That their kneeling is an adoration or worshipping God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is manifest Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are objectum a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do Didoclavius p. 755. tells us That Genuflexion is Idolatry which Maccovius assents to Loc. Com. p. 861. To which Mr. T. Sect. 15. 1. The Author of S. T.
pretence out of envy may be heard by the Saints lawfully But the Saints may rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ though they should not preach him sincerely but in pretence Therefore Answ 1. We deny his Major I may rejoyce and that lawfully in those mens preaching Christ whom I have no warrant to hear There may be cause of rejoycing as we told Mr. T. in S. T. in respect of the issue and event of things by the wise Providence of God though the means used for their production be evil and not to be complied with In what have Christians greater cause of rejoycing than in the death of Christ Yet had it been utterly unlawful to have joyn'd in Counsel with or any wayes abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that crucified or slew him Should the Pope send some Jesuites into any remote parts of Asia to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there here were upon some accounts ground of rejoycing yet no ground to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry Nor do his Scriptures in the least prove his Major Isa 52. 7. 〈◊〉 1. 15. being applied by the Apostle to Gospel-Preachers Rom. 10. 15. evince onely thus much That such as act from Gospel-Authority in that work are to be welcomed and heard What Mr. T. replies is not considerable 1st 'T is true preaching Christ is a good thing and to be rejoyced in but preaching Christ by virtue of an Antichristian Call and Office-power is not so nor to be rejoyced in or complied with 2dly That he knows no reason why the Saints may not attend on the Ministry of the Jesuites sent from the Pope to preach the Gospel if they do so is no Argument that there is no reason That they act from an Antichristian Call and Commission is to Christ-loving Saints reason sufficient 2dly We deny his Minor Proposition Saints may not rejoyce in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ Because 1st All preaching of Christ is not to be rejoyced in as the Devils Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34 41. Acts 16. 17 18. The Judaical Preachers preaching Christ with the Ceremonies of the Law Gal. 5. 12. Phil. 3. 2 3. Grievous Wolves Acts 20. 29. Such as hate to be reformed Psal 50. 16 18. as the Author of Prelatical Preachers none of Christ Teachers Argues Which though Mr. T. thinks to put off with this All these Texts are impertinent for as much as these do not preach Christ in which I wish he speak not against his own Conscience yet others will not take this for an answer They all preached Christ and upon other accounts are not to be heard but turned from as the intelligent Reader may inform himself by the perusal of the Scriptures instanced in We shall only infer If the Judaical Teachers were not to be rejoyced in though they preached Christ because they mixed therewith the Doctrine of Mosaical Ceremonies much less is their preaching to be rejoyced in who mix therewith the Doctrine of Antichristian fopperies and manifest themselves to be grievous Wolves in their persecuting the flock of Christ who cannot conform thereunto Because 2dly In propriety and strictness of speech as saith the Author of the forementioned Treatise Christ cannot be said to be preached by a Prelatical Ministry they justifie them who deny Christ to be the sole Lawgiver of his Church and so make him an Idol What the Animadverter hath dictated Chap. 5. in opposition hereunto is there answered by us Nay 3dly In case such a Minister as this that preacheth by the Bishops License should in his Doctrine affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole Law-giver to his Churches yet in and by his very act of Preaching he should deny it Which though Mr. T. makes a dreadful out-cry against spitting the fire of his passion on the face of his Antagonist an Argument that he hath nothing soberly to reply is evidently true For 1st Thereby he doth own an Officer no where of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture 2dly He makes the Biship a Law-giver to himself by whose License he preacheth and not otherwise What Mr. T. would rejoyce in I am not concerned to take notice of there are some men who dare rejoyce in a thing of naught Arg. 2. He adds That preaching of Christ that is no other than Paul rejoyced in the Saints now may rejoyce in But such is the preaching of the present Ministers Therefore Answ 1. To wave the general exception we have against the Argument which proves not what it is produced to prove viz. The lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers which we find not in the Conclusion nor is it deducible from the Premises We answer 2dly The Minor is most notoriously false and untrue There is other exception taken against hearing the present Ministers than against the persons mentioned by Paul And we told this Animadverter so in S. T. 1. It cannot be proved as it hath been with respect to the Ministers of England that those mentioned by Paul were not true Gospel-Ministers 2. Their preaching Christ out of envy doth not evince it the Object whereof was not Christ but Paul notwithstanding which they might be real Saints and true Gospel-Ministers To which he only opposeth his Dictates without proof which we are not concern'd to take notice of There might be in them at the root Brotherly-love to Paul though under the power of temptation they preached Christ out of envy to him We say in S. T. 4thly Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them That because Paul rejoyceth at their Preaching therefore 't is the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry is such a non-sequitur as will never be made good To which he speaks not the least word that may be called a Reply he attempts not at all to manifest the validity of the consequence which he should have done if he would have reinforced this Argument What he cites out of Mr. Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. we are not concerned to take notice of it Had he not cited it by halves the Reader would soon have perceived his cause smitten by it through the fifth Rib. Sect. 3. The answer to the fourth Objection vindicated All that preach truth are not to be heard proved The Ministers of England preach truth but by halves as the Bishop is pleased to allow them Many of the truths they preach they contradict in their practice With them they mingle many errors Particular Instances in the most remarkable Heads of Divinity hereof produced THE fourth Objection proposed in S. T. is The Ministers of England preach Truth and is it not lawful to hear Truth preached To which we answer 1. That 't is lawful to hear Truth preached but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment Which the hearing the present Ministers we have proved is not 2. All that preach Truth are not to be heard nor will our